ADBI Working Paper Series

RECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN
BASIC EDUCATION IN THAILAND:
ISSUES AND CHALLENGES

Wannaphong Durongkaveroj

No. 1322
June 2022

Asian Development Bank Institute

 Wannaphong Durongkaveroj is a lecturer at the Faculty of Economics of Ramkhamhaeng
University, Bangkok.
The views expressed in this paper are the views of the author and do not necessarily
reflect the views or policies of ADBI, ADB, its Board of Directors, or the governments
they represent. ADBI does not guarantee the accuracy of the data included in this paper
and accepts no responsibility for any consequences of their use. Terminology used may
not necessarily be consistent with ADB official terms.
Working papers are subject to formal revision and correction before they are finalized
and considered published.

The Working Paper series is a continuation of the formerly named Discussion Paper series;
the numbering of the papers continued without interruption or change. ADBI’s working
papers reflect initial ideas on a topic and are posted online for discussion. Some working
papers may develop into other forms of publication.

The Asian Development Bank refers to “China” as the People’s Republic of China

Suggested citation:

Durongkaveroj, W. 2022. Recent Developments in Basic Education in Thailand: Issues

and Challenges. ADBI Working Paper 1322. Tokyo: Asian Development Bank Institute.
Available: https://www.adb.org/publications/recent-developments-in-basic-education-in-
thailand-issues-and-challenges

Please contact the authors for information about this paper.

Email: wannaphong@ru.ac.th

Asian Development Bank Institute

Kasumigaseki Building, 8th Floor
3-2-5 Kasumigaseki, Chiyoda-ku
Tokyo 100-6008, Japan

Tel: +81-3-3593-5500
Fax: +81-3-3593-5571
URL: www.adbi.org
E-mail: info@adbi.org

© 2022 Asian Development Bank Institute

ADBI Working Paper 1322 W. Durongkaveroj

Abstract

Over the past few decades, Thailand has made progress in expanding access to basic
education, resulting in an increase in literacy rates and narrowing gaps in school attendance
between socio-economic groups. This paper surveys recent developments in Thailand’s
basic education with an emphasis on the learning outcomes of Thai students, the
determinants of such outcomes, and the challenges faced by the basic education system.
The paper finds that despite the significant amount of resources spent on education and the
fact that the quality of the workforce is crucial for the country’s current stage of economic
development, students’ learning outcomes are low and have not improved significantly in
either national or international assessments. The performance of junior secondary school
students in the national examinations has declined, especially in mathematics and science.
While the performance of senior secondary school students has improved slightly over the
same period, the mean results for core subjects (mathematics, science, and English) were
less than 50. This worrying figure is worsened by inequality in education quality across
regions, since the performance of secondary school students is lower in poorer, remote
regions. In addition, according to the results of the international assessments, Thai students
are performing below the international average in core subjects. The paper argues that such
poor learning outcomes are presumably due to two main reasons: the role of small school,
and inefficient resource allocation for education in public spending. Key challenges in
Thailand’s basic education include the need to expand the supply of human capital to avoid
the middle-income trap and the aging society. This is a pivotal period in Thailand’s economic
development. Educational reform is needed to ensure high-quality basic education for all.

Keywords: basic education, learning outcomes, Thailand

JEL Classification: I21, I25, I28

ADBI Working Paper 1322 W. Durongkaveroj

Contents

1. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................ 1

2. THAILAND’S EDUCATION SYSTEM ............................................................................ 2

3. PROGRESS IN BASIC EDUCATION SYSTEM ............................................................ 2

4. STUDENTS’ LEARNING OUTCOMES ......................................................................... 4

5. ISSUES AND CHALLENGES ........................................................................................ 8

6. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION ............................................................................... 9

APPENDIX ............................................................................................................................... 11

REFERENCES ........................................................................................................................ 12
ADBI Working Paper 1322 W. Durongkaveroj

1. INTRODUCTION
Despite the sizable public resources allocated to Thailand’s basic education system,
academic performance among primary and secondary school students in both national
and international assessments is poor and has not improved markedly over the past
decade. Over the years, numerous studies have established that this worrying trend is
primarily driven by a large disparity in the quality of education between urban and rural
areas, which in turn adversely affects other development indicators such as economic
growth and income inequality (Lounkaew 2013; Paweenawat and McNown 2014;
Lathapipat 2016; Wasi et al. 2019). The slowing economic growth and growing concern
about the middle-income trap have spawned debate on equity in basic education
among scholars and policy makers. This paper sets out to contribute to the debate by
examining academic performance among primary and secondary school students,
analyzing the forces driving it, and attempting to identify key challenges for Thailand’s
basic education system.
Over the past few decades, access to basic education has expanded remarkably. Even
though early studies (e.g., Sirilaksana 1993; Warr 2007) found progress in basic
education unsatisfactory because secondary school participation rates were low and
did not improve significantly during the late 1980s, this was no longer the case after
2000. Lower secondary enrollment rates increased from 77% in 1995 to 95% in 2020.
In the corresponding years, upper secondary enrollment rates rose from 41% to 81%.
Primary and secondary school participation rates have improved significantly thanks to
the first education reform implemented in 1999 and the Constitution, which guarantees
an equal right to basic education among Thai citizens. This expansion of Thailand’s
education is the result of sustained public spending in education. Thailand has
consistently allocated a significant share of total government expenditure to education
each year. In 2020, the government spent about 12% of its budget on basic education.
However, it is unclear whether the substantial investments that Thailand has made in
education have led to improvements in learning outcomes. Data from the 2018
Program for International Student Assessment (PISA) reveal that Thai students scored
lower than the OECD average in reading, science, and mathematics. In addition,
research over the years has established that there are large disparities in learning
achievement between Bangkok and elsewhere in Thailand (Chiengkul 2019; Lathapipat
2016; Lounkaew 2013; Pattaravanich et al. 2005). Moreover, the distribution of learning
in Bangkok is as good as in high-income countries such as the United States. This
means that students in Bangkok are receiving high-quality education like that seen in
other advanced countries. The World Bank (2012) called for improvements to the
distribution of learning among rural areas for Thailand to have more equal education
quality.
This study aims to review recent developments in Thailand’s basic education system
with a focus on students’ learning outcomes, and attempts to identify key factors that
explain such outcomes. While there is a growing body of research on basic education
in other developing countries (e.g., Suryadarma et al. 2006; Ryan et al. 2009;
Hanushek 2009; Asadullah et al. 2020), to the best of my knowledge, this is the
first paper that provides a comprehensive review of the Thai basic education system
using a new dataset. The data used in this paper are obtained from several sources,
including the Ministry of Education, the National Institute of Educational Testing
Services (NIETS), and the National Statistical Office (NSO).

1
ADBI Working Paper 1322 W. Durongkaveroj

The next section provides a brief overview of the Thai education system. Section 3
briefly summarizes progress in expanding access to basic education over the past two
decades. The subsequent section discusses students’ learning outcomes. Issues and
challenges in Thailand’s basic education system are identified in section 5. The last
section concludes.

2. THAILAND’S EDUCATION SYSTEM

This section provides a brief account of the Thai education system. The Thai formal
education system consists of three main levels: early year education, basic education,
and higher education.
Enrollment in the basic education system begins at the age of six. Basic education in
Thailand is divided into six years of primary schooling (Prathom 1 to 6), three years of
lower secondary schooling (Mattayom 1 to 3), and three years of upper secondary
schooling (Mattayom 4 to 6). Compulsory education in Thailand covers the first
nine years of basic education (six years of primary schooling and three years of lower
secondary school). This means that attending pre-school and upper secondary
schooling is not mandatory. After completing lower secondary education, students are
able to enroll in vocational and technical education as an alternative to a general
academic path (upper secondary school program).
Based on the 2007 Constitution and the 1999 National Education Act (with a 2010
amendment), all Thai citizens have an equal right to receive free basic education for at
least 12 years. This free basic education provision covers pre-primary, primary, and
lower secondary education. The Ministry of Education is responsible for overseeing
all levels of education and formulating education policies. The Office of the Basic
Education Commission (OBEC), founded in 2003, is responsible for formulating basic
education policies, the core curriculum, and standards. It also monitors and evaluates
teaching promotion in schools. Public basic education is also administered within
schools, as each school is responsible for its own administration, while management in
several areas such as academic matters and general affairs is monitored by local
administrative offices (LAO) (UNICEF 2017; Ministry of Education 2008).
In summary, Thailand implemented the first education reform in 1999, thanks to
the 1999 National Education Act. This led to significant changes to the structure
of management and administration, with an emphasis on the decentralization of
administrative responsibilities to the local level. The Thai government also invests a
significant amount of its resources in this section to support the initiative. Spending on
basic education is about 15%–20% of national expenditure each year. The next section
explains whether the increased spending and the reform have led to greater access to
basic education.

3. PROGRESS IN BASIC EDUCATION SYSTEM

Over the past few decades, Thailand has made significant progress in increasing
access to basic education. Table 1 shows enrollment rates (gross) in basic education
from 1995 to 2020.

2
ADBI Working Paper 1322 W. Durongkaveroj

Table 1: Enrollment Rate (Gross) in Basic Education from 1995 to 2020

1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020
Primary 110 106 104 104 102 101
Lower secondary 77 87 95 98 99 95
Upper secondary 41 58 64 72 78 81
Note: Gross enrollment rate is the number of students enrolled in a given level, regardless of age, expressed as a
percentage of the official school-age population corresponding to the same level of education. In general, a high
enrollment rate indicates a high degree of participation in a given education level. However, the number can exceed
100% due to the inclusion of over-aged and under-aged students as a result of early and/or late entry and grade
repetition.
Source: Ministry of Education (2021).

As shown in Table 1, primary school enrollment is always high as a result of the

Primary Education Act which was first promulgated in 1921. From 1995 to 2020, lower
secondary school enrollment increased from 77% to 95%. Over the same period, the
upper secondary enrollment rate doubled. Such an increase in the enrollment rate
across the three basic education levels indicates success in expanding access to basic
education to Thai citizens. Another improvement in basic education is falling school
dropout rates, as displayed in Table 2.

Table 2: The Number of School Dropouts in Basic Education from 2005 to 2019
2005 2010 2015 2019
Primary 29,703 6,786 1,313 121
(0.69) (0.19) (0.04) (0.00)
Lower secondary 48,777 20,155 2,837 681
(2.11) (0.94) (0.16) (0.04)
Upper secondary 20,775 10,886 1,417 1,045
(2.21) (1.03) (0.13) (0.11)
Note: School dropout rates (the number of school dropouts in a given level of education as a percentage of all students)
in parentheses.
Source: Ministry of Education (2021).

Previously, the number of school dropouts was high, especially among students in
upper secondary schools. Note that it is not compulsory to attend upper secondary
education, Mattayom 4 to 6. In the past two decades, there has been progress in
reducing school dropouts. In 2002, more than 100,000 students dropped out of schools
across all education levels. The figure was less than 2,000 in 2019. The school dropout
rate was close to zero in 2019. In the past, poverty was the most cited reason among
students who dropped out of school. Presently, family problems play a key role. At the
upper secondary level, students drop out of school due to the requirement to support
families. This means that economically disadvantaged students are more likely to drop
out of school than their affluent classmates.
There have been other significant improvements in the basic education system. Over
time, the student-teacher ratio has declined. On average, it fell from 0.20 in 2005 to
0.14 in 2019 (Office of the Educational Council 2019). Data from the World Bank
(2021) reveal that there are 16.64 students for every teacher in primary education and
25.95 students per teacher in secondary education. Such figures are relatively low
compared to the world average and other developing countries in Asia such as the
Philippines and Viet Nam.

3
ADBI Working Paper 1322 W. Durongkaveroj

In addition, the literacy rate for the population aged 6 and above is very high, as the
total literacy rate was 93.9% in 2018. There was a moderate increase in the literacy
rate between 2000 and 2018, with a short period of declining literacy rates. Note,
however, that more men than women are literate. The gender gap in the literacy rate
is about three percentage points, and the gap has been fairly constant over time.
Moreover, the mean number of years of schooling has increased over the past
two decades in all age groups (see Table 3). Mean years of schooling is about eight for
the population above 25. Nevertheless, this figure is still lower than other developed
countries and neighboring countries, for instance, Singapore, Malaysia, and Viet Nam.

Table 3: Mean Years of Schooling from 2005 to 2020

Age Groups 2005 2010 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
15–39 9.9 10.6 10.6 10.7 10.8 10.8 10.8 11.0
40–59 6.9 7.4 7.8 7.9 8.1 8.2 8.3 8.6
15–59 8.6 9 9.3 9.4 9.5 9.6 9.7 9.9
15+ 7.8 8.2 8.5 8.6 8.6 8.6 8.7 8.9
60+ 4.1 4.6 5.0 5.0 5.1 5.1 5.2 5.4
Source: Ministry of Education (2021).

In summary, enrollment rates in education and mean years of schooling have

increased remarkably over the past two decades, thanks to Thailand’s education
reform in 1999 and expansion of free schooling from 12 to 15 years in 2009. The next
section describes whether these considerable efforts have resulted in higher learning
outcomes.

4. STUDENTS’ LEARNING OUTCOMES

This section discusses students’ learning outcomes. There is a national examination
known as the Ordinary National Education Test (O-NET). It is a series of written
examinations and is administered face-to-face and delivered through paper-pencil
tests. The O-NET is a mandatory examination for all students and serves as student
selection to higher education programs for those who desire to continue to higher
education. The O-NET is administered annually by NIETS to grade 6 (Prathom 6),
grade 9 (Mattayom 3), and grade 12 (Mattayom 6) students in both public and private
schools. The O-NET was first administered to grade 12 students in 2005, then
expanded to grade 6 students in 2007, and grade 9 students have had to do the test
since 2008. Table 4 reports the O-NET results for grade 6 students (Prathom 6)
between 2011 and 2020.
According to Table 4, the overall scores of grade 6 students have decreased over the
past decade. The average score for all subjects except Thai language was lower than
50. In addition, the average scores for the subjects of English, math, and science have
fallen over the past five years. Table 5 reports the O-NET score for grade 9 students
(Mattayom 3).

4
ADBI Working Paper 1322 W. Durongkaveroj

Table 4: O-NET Results for Grade 6 Students (Prathom 6) from 2011 to 2020
2011 2015 2020 Δ2011–2020 Δ2015–2020
Overall 49.36 44.97 42.13 –7.23 –2.84
Thai language 50.04 49.33 56.20 6.16 6.87
English 38.37 40.31 43.55 5.18 3.24
Math 52.40 43.47 29.99 –22.41 –13.47
Science 40.82 42.59 38.78 –2.04 –3.81
Social studies 52.22 49.18 N/A N/A N/A
Note: Maximum score for each subject is 100.
Source: NIETS (2021).

Table 5: O-NET Scores for Grade 9 Students (Mattayom 3) from 2011 to 2015
2011 2015 2020 Δ2011–2020 Δ2015–2020
Overall 40.91 37.91 36.03 –4.88 –1.88
Thai language 48.11 42.64 54.29 6.18 11.65
English 30.49 30.62 34.38 3.89 3.76
Math 32.08 32.40 25.46 –6.62 –6.93
Science 32.19 37.63 29.89 –2.30 –7.74
Social studies 42.73 46.24 N/A N/A N/A
Note: Maximum score for each subject is 100.
Source: NEITS (2021).

Table 5 indicates a worrying trend in the performance of grade 9 students over the
past ten years. The average scores for all subjects are less than 50 and, unfortunately,
the scores have fallen continually. In addition, average scores for the subjects of
math and science have decreased consistently, especially over the past five years.
Note that English is the only subject that saw an increase in the average score
between 2017 and 2020. Table 6 shows performance in the O-NET for grade 12
students (Mattayom 6).

Table 6: O-NET Scores for Grade 12 Students (Mattayom 6) from 2011 to 2020
2011 2015 2020 Δ2011–2020 Δ2015–2020
Overall 34.95 34.81 33.78 –1.17 –1.03
Thai language 41.88 49.36 44.36 2.48 –5.00
English 21.80 24.98 29.94 8.14 4.96
Math 22.73 26.59 26.04 3.31 –0.55
Science 27.90 33.40 32.68 4.78 –0.72
Social studies 33.39 39.70 35.93 2.54 –3.77
Note: Maximum score for each subject is 100.
Source: NEITS (2021).

As shown in Table 6, the average O-NET scores for grade 12 students were also below
50 in all tested subjects. The average scores over the past ten years have not changed
significantly. However, there was a slight improvement in the average scores for math
and science between 2011 and 2020, with a slight decrease over the period between
2015 and 2020.

5
ADBI Working Paper 1322 W. Durongkaveroj

However, the O-NET has long been criticized for its failure to assess students’
academic proficiency and for not testing students’ use of knowledge and critical
thinking. There was an attempt recently to replace the O-NET with a more relevant
academic proficiency test, but progress has stalled. In this paper, I therefore present
Thai students’ performance in the OECD’s PISA.
Thailand has participated in PISA since 2000. In 2018, about 70% of the country’s
15-year-olds were covered. Students in Thailand scored lower than the OECD average
in all subjects (see Figure 1). In addition, Thai students underperformed their peers in
several Southeast Asian countries (see Table A1 in the Appendix).

Figure 1: PISA Scores Among Thai Students and OECD Average

from 2000 to 2018

Source: OECD, PISA 2018 database.

According to Figure 1, scores for all subjects (reading, math, and science) have
dropped significantly. In 2018, scores kept falling for reading, while there was a slight
increase in scores for math and science. Between 2015 and 2018, the share of
students who performed below the proficiency level for reading increased by 10% while
the shares for math and science remained constant.
In addition, there is a wide gap in reading scores between economically disadvantaged
and economically advantaged students, and between urban and rural students. Those
who study in private independent schools—schools that receive less than 50% of their
core funding from the government—do better than those in public and private schools.
While low and declining average scores in both national and international examinations
among Thai students are disappointing and worrying, it is important to note that such
scores hide vast differences in academic performance between students in urban and
rural areas. This inequality in education has long been raised among scholars
(Sirilaksana 1993; Pattaravanich et al. 2005; World Bank, 2012; Lounkaew 2013).
Figure 2 compares learning achievement measured by national examination (O-NET)
for three subjects in Bangkok and other regions.

6
ADBI Working Paper 1322 W. Durongkaveroj

Figure 2: O-NET Scores by Regions (Grade 12, Mattayom 6)

Source: NIETS (2021).

As demonstrated in Figure 2, there are large disparities in learning achievement

between Bangkok and other areas in Thailand. Students in Bangkok outperformed
students in other regions in math, science, and English. The average scores among
students in other regions except the Northeast are fairly similar. However, the average
scores of the Northeast students were lowest in all subjects. These urban-rural learning
outcomes differentials are not surprising due to differences in the quality of teachers
and infrastructure between regions. Such vast disparities in learning achievement are
also found among grade 9 and 6 students (see Table A2 in the appendix).
Large gaps in learning outcomes also exist across provinces. Thanks to available data
at the provincial level, it is found that only 24 out of 77 provinces (31%) achieved 2018
O-NET average scores higher than the country average. Consistent with an analysis
at regional level, most of them are in the central region of Thailand, while none are
in the Northeast region. A few Northern (e.g., Chiang Mai and Phrae) and Southern
(i.e., Phuket and Trang) provinces are in this group. Table A3 in the appendix reports
average O-NET scores in the top five scoring provinces and the bottom five scoring
provinces in 2014 and 2018. High-performing provinces are those that are richer and
more developed, measured by their income per capita. The low-performing provinces
are remote and poorer. Moreover, average scores decreased between 2014 and 2018
in all provinces, but the poor-performing provinces (e.g., Yala, Pattani, and Narathiwat)
saw bigger declines in average scores. Of 77 provinces, Bangkok registered the lowest
drop in the average O-NET score (0.43 percentage points). Nong Bua Lamphu, one of
the Northeastern provinces, had the biggest drop (4.48 percentage points). This is a
worrying trend in academic performance among secondary students living in different
areas and could worsen inequality in education in the country.
The following section discusses key issues and challenges in the basic education
system in Thailand. It focuses on inequality in education, driven by small schools
and differences in the quality of education in rural areas. The section also offers a
discussion on how these inequalities in education can affect the Thai economy.

7
ADBI Working Paper 1322 W. Durongkaveroj

5. ISSUES AND CHALLENGES

Over the past few decades, Thailand has made significant progress toward
increasing access to basic education, in line with economic development. Primary
and secondary enrollment have improved remarkably, with an increase in the adult
literacy rate. However, students’ learning outcomes from both national and international
assessments are low and have not improved greatly in recent years. This suggests that
the problem lies in the quality of education at primary and secondary levels, given the
impressive number of total school enrollments. Warr (2019) argues that a backward
and under-resourced educational system has caused Thailand to be caught in a
middle-income trap.
Recent studies (e.g., Lounkaew 2013; Prasartpornsirichoke and Takahashi 2013;
Wittayasin 2017; Lathapipat 2016) suggest that low learning outcomes and rising
inequalities in students’ academic performance in standardized assessments are
central to the current debate in Thailand’s basic education. Lathapipat (2018) describes
that the educational quality received by students in rural areas and urban areas is
different. This is primarily because students in rural areas often attend small schools,
defined as having fewer than 120 students, which lack high-quality teachers and
infrastructure. Table 7 shows the number of small schools in 2020 administered
by OBEC.

Table 7: The Number of Small Schools in 2020

Schools with More Schools with Fewer Than
Level Than 120 Students 120 Students (Small Schools) Total
Primary school 6,251 13,962 20,213
(31%) (69%) (100%)
Secondary school 2,186 171 2,357
(93%) (7%) (100%)
Opportunity expansion school 6,136 837 6,973
(88%) (12%) (100%)
Special education school 93 6 99
(94%) (6%) (100%)
Total 14,666 14,976 29,642
(49%) (51%) (100%)
Source: Ministry of Education (2020).

In 2020, approximately half of the 29,642 schools in Thailand were classified as small
schools. About 970,000 students are currently enrolled in these small schools. In
addition, more than two-thirds of primary schools have fewer than 120 students.
Closing or merging small schools is a controversial subject in Thailand. Even though
several studies suggest that small schools are not cost-effective and have limited ability
to deliver high-quality education (Strike 2008; Halsey 2011; Panpinya et al. 2021), it is
argued that these small schools provide learning opportunities, especially for poor
students in rural areas, and guardians and community representatives should play a
role in dealing with this issue (Choomponla et al. 2014; Wannagatesiri et al. 2014).
According to the executive meeting at the Office of the Permanent Secretary, Ministry
of Education, out of 14,976 small schools across the country, 8,375 (56%) need reform.
About 200 small schools are due to close soon.

8
ADBI Working Paper 1322 W. Durongkaveroj

Another issue related to the gap in equation quality between urban and rural areas is
endowment. Sizable public investment is required to reduce the disparity in endowment
between schools by solving problems of teacher shortages and poor infrastructure.
Given the sheer amount of public investment each year in primary and secondary
schools, greater educational resources are necessary but insufficient to reduce
inequality in education. Intangible aspects of education such as accountability,
autonomy, management, and perceptions of staff and students are also important in
increasing education quality. Lounkaew (2013) utilized the Thai PISA 2009 literacy test,
finding that intangible school characteristics such as autonomy, accountability, and
management can explain achievement gaps between students in urban and rural
areas. Therefore, an increase in educational investment alone may not necessarily
reduce urban-rural student academic performance differentials.
Small improvements in learning levels could have detrimental effects on the Thai
economy, given the country’s current stage of economic development. In the decades
since World War II, Thailand has structurally transformed from a low-income,
agriculture-based, closed economy to a middle-income, industrial-based, and export-
oriented economy. Sustained economic growth has resulted in large scale poverty
reduction. However, given the slowing economic growth in the 2000s, there is growing
concern among policymakers and scholars that Thailand is caught in the middle-
income trap—an inability to raise the country from middle-income to high-income
levels. A number of studies describes that both the quantity and the quality of the
workforce are central to the debate on Thailand’s miracle economic performance in
the past few decades (Coxhead and Plangpraphan 1999; Warr 2005; Warr and
Suphannachart 2020). However, expanding the supply of human capital is viewed as
an important tool to escape the trap (Jitsuchon 2012; Riedel 2019). Warr (2019)
suggests that upgrading the quality of the workforce through massive public investment
and reform of the education curriculum is required to overcome the middle-income trap.
Given poor learning outcomes among students and disparity in academic performance
among students across the country, it is challenging for Thailand to raise the quality of
its educational system.
Another issue is that the Thai economy is aging, driven by low fertility rates and long
life expectancy. Thailand’s birth rate decreased from 796,091 in 2011 to 587,368 in
2020, the lowest rate ever. In addition, the total fertility rate was 1.51, which is lower
than replacement level fertility (Department of Provincial Administration 2021). This
results in declining student populations. The number of students enrolled in primary
schools fell from about 6 million in 2002 to 5 million in 2010, and there were 4.7 million
students in 2020. Over the same period, the number of students enrolled in pre-primary
schools decreased from 2 million to 1.64 million. However, the number of educational
institutions and teachers in these schools has been fairly constant over the past
two decades (Ministry of Education 2021). Thus, demographic change, resulting in
decreased demand for basic education, seems to pose another challenge for how to
efficiently mobilize resources in the education system.
The next section raises discussion on key challenges and provides recommendations
to practitioners and policy makers.

6. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

As an upper-middle-income country, Thailand’s remarkable economic development
over the past few decades has been accompanied by startling improvements
in indicators of wellbeing such as life expectancy, sanitation, and adult literacy.

9
ADBI Working Paper 1322 W. Durongkaveroj

Unsurprisingly, the sustained economic growth has been in line with the expansion of
total school enrollments. However, given the slowing economic growth over the past
two decades, many would argue that Thailand needs to undertake reform in education
aimed at improving the quality of the workforce to overcome the middle-income trap.
This paper constitutes the first step in understanding issues and key challenges in the
basic education system in Thailand, with a focus on the most recent decade.
Against the backdrop of the considerable amount of public and private investment
in basic education and the fact that school enrollment rates at both primary and
secondary levels are high, this paper finds that students’ learning outcomes are not
satisfactory and have not improved significantly. Academic performance, especially for
grade 6 and 9 students in national examinations, is low in the subjects of math,
science, and English. Thai students’ scores in the PISA are low by international
standards and have not improved over the past decade. More importantly, there is a
large disparity in learning outcomes between students in urban and rural areas. This
achievement gap has not narrowed over time, which casts doubt on the current policy
emphasis on providing equal access and quality of education to Thai citizens.
Differences in learning quality between urban and rural areas are due to insufficient
educational resources and the physical infrastructure in rural areas. Increases in public
education expenditure should be mobilized to narrow these differences. Recently, the
Equitable Education Fund (EEF) was established under the Equitable Education Act
2018 with the objective of providing financial support for children and youths who are
in greatest need and reducing inequality in education by forming partnerships with
relevant stakeholders. In the 2021 fiscal year, the EEF received a budget of 6.08 billion
Baht, up from 2.54 billion Baht in 2018. The EEF provides financial support to
extremely poor students to increase access to basic education and prevent school
dropout. Students receive financial support on the condition that they maintain a
school attendance record of more than 80%; in addition, their weight and height are
monitored to detect malnutrition. More than a million students nationwide receive this
support (EEF, 2021). To ensure an increase in student learning outcomes among poor
students, it is recommended that the government adds learning-related accountability
measures to this program. Learning outcomes can be used as performance indicators.
This is a way to ensure that funds are spent on things that matter for improving
education quality.
Many studies describe the lack of qualified teachers in rural areas as one of the key
factors explaining inequality in basic education (Vandeweyer et al. 2021; World Bank
Group 2015). Another issue, however, is the lack of school administrative staff,
especially in small schools. Small schools receive relatively small budgets, but they are
subject to the same key performance indicators as larger schools. Teachers in these
small schools therefore have to allocate time to do administrative work themselves,
which precludes them from focusing on teaching. Increasing the supply of
administrative staff in small schools, especially in rural areas, could allow teachers to
focus on things that matter for improving students’ learning outcomes.
Future research could shed light on factors that explain low student outcomes and
inequality in education and the mechanisms through which these are influenced. In
addition, it would be interesting to see whether there are differences in the quality of
education between big, full-resourced and small, under-resourced schools, and how
local administrative offices could play a role in closing such gaps. Finally, it is important
to expand studies on the effects of educational inequality to other aspects, such as
income, health, and life satisfaction.

10
ADBI Working Paper 1322 W. Durongkaveroj

APPENDIX
Table A1: The 2018 PISA Performance in Reading, Mathematics,
and Science Among Southeast Asian Countries
Mathematics Reading Science
Brunei Darussalam 430.11 408.07 430.98
Indonesia 378.67 370.97 396.07
Malaysia 440.21 414.98 437.62
Philippines 352.57 339.69 356.93
Singapore 569.01 549.46 550.94
Thailand 418.56 392.89 425.81
Viet Nam 495.68 504.51 543.38
Average 440.68 425.80 448.82
Average (Developing SEA countries) 417.13 404.61 431.96
Source: OECD, PISA 2018 database.

Table A2: The 2020 Regional O-NET Performance by Region

at Three Education Levels
Grade 12 (Mattayom 6) Grade 9 (Mattayom 3) Grade 6 (Prathom 6)
Math Science English Math Science English Math Science English
Bangkok 34.35 37.94 40.97 31.61 33.02 43.87 34.76 42.48 57.22
Central 26.33 32.76 30.27 25.81 30.12 35.19 30.47 39.07 45.43
West 25.50 32.31 28.51 25.32 30.09 33.74 29.54 38.28 42.29
East 27.19 33.73 31.50 26.59 30.61 37.17 31.00 40.18 48.03
Northeast 22.83 30.64 26.31 23.82 28.99 31.92 28.33 37.35 38.71
South 24.61 31.42 27.86 25.04 29.46 33.61 29.41 38.25 41.43
North 27.44 34.37 30.45 26.99 31.00 35.75 31.29 40.07 45.60
Source: NIETS (2021).

Table A3: The 2018 O-NET in Top- and Bottom-scoring Provinces

2014 2018 Change
Whole country 37.56 35.02 –2.54
1 Bangkok (Central) 42.94 42.51 –0.43
2 Nakhon Prathom (Central) 41.01 39.60 –1.41
3 Phuket (South) 41.21 39.34 –1.87
4 Nakhon Nayok (Central) 40.02 38.66 –1.37
5 Nonthaburi (Central) 40.99 38.62 –2.37
72 Kalasin (Northeast) 34.19 30.34 –3.85
73 Nong Bua Lamphu (Northeast) 34.53 30.06 –4.48
74 Yala (South) 30.61 28.50 –2.11
75 Pattani (South) 29.50 28.04 –1.46
76 Narathiwat (South) 29.71 27.14 –2.57
Source: NEITS (2021).

11
ADBI Working Paper 1322 W. Durongkaveroj

REFERENCES
Asadullah, M. N., Perera, L. D. H., and Xiao, S. (2020). Vietnam’s extraordinary
performance in the PISA assessment: A cultural explanation of an education
paradox. Journal of Policy Modeling, 42(5), 913–932.
Chiengkul, P. (2019). Uneven development, inequality and concentration of power:
A critique of Thailand 4.0 Third World Quarterly, 40(9), 1689–1707.
Choomponla, C., Phongpinyo, P., and Larsak, P. (2014). A case study: Successful
model of education management in small schools in Northeast of Thailand
(in Thai). Bangkok: Thailand Research Fund.
Coxhead, I., and Plangpraphan, J. (1999). Economic boom, financial bust, and the
decline of Thai agriculture: Was growth in the 1990s too fast? Chulalongkorn
Journal of Economics, 11(1), 76–96.
Department of Provincial Administration. (2021). Population statistics. Retrieved
30 March 2022 from https://stat.bora.dopa.go.th/stat/statnew/statMenu/
newStat/home.php.
Equitable Education Fund. (2021). EEF 2021 annual report. Retrieved 30 March 2022
from https://www.eef.or.th/ about/annual-and-action-plan/annualreport/.
Halsey, R. J. (2011). Small school, big future. Australian Journal of Education, 55(1),
5–13.
Hanushek, E. A. (2009). School policy: Implications of recent research for human
capital investments in South Asia and other developing countries. Education
Economics, 17(3), 291–313.
Jitsuchon, S. (2012). Thailand in a middle-income trap. TDRI Quarterly Review, 27(2),
13–20.
Lathapipat, D. (2016). Inequality in education and wages. In: Phongpaichit, P. and
Baker, C. (eds.), Unequal Thailand: Aspects of income, wealth, and power,
pp. 43–54. Singapore: NUS Press.
———. (2018). Inequalities in education attainment. In: Fry, G. (ed.), Education in
Thailand, pp. 345-372. Singapore: Springer.
Lounkaew, K. (2013). Explaining urban-rural differences in educational achievement in
Thailand: Evidence from PISA literacy data. Economics for Education Review,
37, 213–225.
Ministry of Education. (2008). Towards a learning society in Thailand:
An introduction to education in Thailand. Retrieved 30 August 2021 from Error!
Hyperlink reference not
valid.https://www.bic.moe.go.th/images/stories/book/ed-eng-series/intro-
ed08.pdf.
———. (2020). Minutes of executive meeting, Office of the Permanent Secretary,
Ministry of Education (November 2020). Retrieved 31 August 2021 from
https://moe360.blog/2020/11/06/executive-meeting-ops/.
———. (2021). Thailand’s mean years of schooling. Retrieved 31 August 2021
from http://www.onec.go.th/th.php/page/view/Outstand/4449.
NIETS. (2021). O-NET scores. Retrieved 31 August 2021 from
https://catalog.niets.or.th/group/1education.

12
ADBI Working Paper 1322 W. Durongkaveroj

Office of the Education Council. (2019). Statistics on basic education. Retrieved

31 August 2021 from http://www.onec.go.th/th.php/book/BookView/1793.
Panpinya, N., Poopayang, P., Phusing, S., and Boonchan, B. (2021). Strategies for
small school administration (in Thai). Journal of Education, 15(2), 220–231.
Pattaravanich, U., Williams, L. B., Lyson, T. A., and Archavanitkul, K. (2005). Inequality
and educational investment in Thai children. Rural Sociology, 70(4), 561–583.
Paweenawat, S. W., and McNown, R. (2014). The determinants of income inequality
in Thailand: A synthetic cohort analysis. Journal of Asian Economies, 31–32,
10–21.
Prasartpornsirichoke, J., and Takahashi, Y. (2013). Assessing inequalities in Thai
education. Thai Journal of East Asian Studies, 18(1), 1–26.
Riedel, J. (2019). Growth slowdown and the middle income trap in Asia. Thailand and
the World Economy, 37(1), 1–16.
Ryan, J., Kang, C., Mitchell, I., and Erickson, G. (2009). China’s basic education
reform: An account of an international collaborative research and development
project. Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 29, 427–441.
Sirilaksana, K. (1993). Education policy. In: Warr, P. G. (ed.), The Thai economy in
transition, pp. 325–354. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Strike, K. A. (2008). Small schools: Size or community? American Journal of Education,
114, 169–190.
Suryadarma, D., Suryahadi, A., Sumarto, S., and Rogers, H. F. (2006). Improving
student performance in public primary schools in developing countries:
Evidence from Indonesia. Education Economics, 14(4), 401–429.
UNICEF. (2017). Public Expenditure Tracking Survey (PETS) on the 15-year free
education program: Kingdom of Thailand. Retrieved 30 August 2021 from
https://www.unicef. Org/15hailand/reports/public-expenditure-tracking-survey-
pets-15-year-free-education-program-kingdom-thailand
Vandeweyer, M., Espinoza, R., Reznikova, L., Lee, M., and Herabat, T. (2021).
Thailand’s education system and skills imbalances: Assessment and policy
recommendations. Economics Department Working Papers No. 1641.
Retrieved 30 March 2022 from https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/economics/
thailand-s-education-system-and-skills-imbalances-assessment-and-policy-
recommendations_b79addb6-en
Wannagatesiri, T., Nukultham, K., Kruea-In, N., and Thongperm, A. (2014). Lesson
learned from the experiences of small schools in Thailand. Procedia – Social
and Behavioral Sciences, 141(2014), 1095–1100.
Warr, P. G. (2005). Boom, bust and beyond. In: Warr, P. G. (ed.), Thailand beyond the
crisis, pp. 3–65. London: Routledge.
———. (2007). Long-term economic performance in Thailand. ASEAN Economic
Bulletin, 24(1), 138–163.
———. (2019). Economic development of post-war Thailand. In: Chachavalpongun, P.
(ed.), Routledge handbook of contemporary Thailand, pp. 36–51. London:
Routledge.
Warr, P. G., and Suphannachart, W. (2020). Benign growth: Structural transformation
and inclusive growth in Thailand. UNU-WIDER Working Paper 2020/46.

13
ADBI Working Paper 1322 W. Durongkaveroj

14
ADBI Working Paper 1322 W. Durongkaveroj

Wasi, N., Warunsiri, S., Devahastin Na Ayudhya, C., Treeratpituk, P., and Nittayo, C.
(2019). Labor income inequality in Thailand: The roles of education, occupation
and employment history. PIER Discussion Paper No. 117. Bangkok:
Puey Ungphakorn Institute for Economic Research.
Wittayasin, S. (2017). Education challenges to Thailand 4.0. International Journal of
Integrated Education and Development, 2(2), 29–35.
World Bank. (2012). Learning outcomes in Thailand: What can we learn from
international assessments? East Asia and Pacific Region and Human
Development Network, Education Report No. 64801-TH. Washington, DC:
The World Bank.
———. (2021). Pupil-teacher ratio, primary. Retrieved 30 August 2021 from
https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SE.PRM.ENRL.TC.ZS.
World Bank Group. (2015). Thailand: Wanted, a quality education for all. Retrieved 30
March 2022 from https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/handle/10986/22355.

15